Rick Perry

Here’s what the Governor said (emphasis is mine and I corrected the lack of capitalization on the name of the Lord):
Perry: “Well, you wouldn’t be bleeping if it was appropriate. The bottom line is the people I’m more interested in are out here on these fire lines. They’re hard working men and women. There is probably union firefighters out there and (G)od bless them for helping save Texas lives and Texas homes.

The Governor directly connected his concerns and ties to union members who are putting their own lives on the line for us, rather than making threats to the lives of others. He identified the men and women and the issues, he is focusing on. He refused to be dragged into political differences at such a solemn time.
Yes, this is the high road, and appropriate for the time and situation.

GOP presidential front-runner and Texas Governor Rick Perry appeared on Fox and Friends this morning to bring attention to the deadly brush fires currently sweeping his home state. While his clear focus was to apprise viewers of the dire situation and bring warning to those potentially in danger, Brian Kilmeade tried to slip in an opportunity for Perry to condemn the controversy du jour: the inflammatory speech made yesterday by union leader Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. in which he called on voters to “take the son of a bitches out.” Perry did not take the bait, refusing to condemn the comments.

via Rick Perry on Jimmy Hoffa Comment | Fox and Friends Video | Mediaite.

Spokesman: Perry plans to attend GOP debate

Pray for Rain. 1000 homes lost in this go-around.

“I don’t know,” Perry said when asked by CBS if he will participate in the GOP debate, set for Wednesday at 8 p.m. ET at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California.

“That’s a fluid situation at the moment, so again I go back to we’re going to be taking care of the folks here,” the governor continued to say on CBS. “I got a great team of people to work with. That’s one of the things I’ve been blessed with for 10 years.”

via Spokesman: Perry plans to attend GOP debate.

Wildfire Evacuations: Here’s What to Bring (Tx Dept of Health alert)

Texas Department of State Health Services
NEWS RELEASE
September 6, 2011

Wildfire Evacuations: Here’s What to Bring

As wildfires threaten many areas of the state, the Texas Department of State Health Services urges Texans to make sure they have grab-and-go items gathered in case evacuation becomes necessary.

People should bring the essentials, including:

• Food and water
•  Cash
• First aid kit
• Phone chargers
• Hand sanitizer
• Extra clothes, shoes
• Pet supplies
• Prescriptions and backup medications
• Baby items
• Blankets, pillows
• Maps

People should also gather important documents and other items, including:

• Photo IDs
• Social security cards, birth certificates or proof of citizenship
• Computer files (hard drives, CD, DVD, USB drive, etc.)
• Medical records, X-rays, benefits documents, etc.
• List of medications with dosages, doctors’ phone numbers
• Duplicate prescriptions from doctor
• List of important phone numbers (family, friends, etc.)
• Financial statements, insurance and property documents
• Wills
• Copies of important keys

For checklists and information about how to build a custom plan, go to www.TexasPrepares.org.

For information on the health effects of wildfire smoke, visit: http://www.texasprepares.org/English/Information-wildfires.shtml

-30-

(News Media Contact: Carrie Williams, Press Officer, 512-776-7119.)

DSHS Press Office on Twitter

Content Questions: DSHS Press Officer

Subscription Information: User Profile Page

DSHS News Items: Online

Technical Assistance: support@govdelivery.com

Quotes from Governor Perry on the Issues (in “Fed Up!”)

A website, Classical Principles, has posted some quotes from the Governor’s book, Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington in a pdf, here.

Robert P. George: Serious GOP Debate

Set your video recorder to CNN at 3 PM EST on Monday, September 5 in order to watch Senator Jim DeMint, Congressman Steve King, and philosopher and bioethicist Robert P. George question the  Republican candidates for President.  The forum will not be a debate, but a series of individual interviews at the Palmetto Freedom Forum in South Carolina.

Professor George has been called the smartest man in the US and I’ve blogged about him and quoted him many times (best, here) at LifeEthics.org.  As an admitted groupie of men like Professor George and Dr. Leon Kass (sorry guys), the Palmetto forum would be my dream forum!

“I think people are aware that things are not right,” George says. “They are not technical problems to be solved by choosing the best technocrat. . . . People have a sense that the problems run deeper than that, that they have to do, in a very significant measure, with a loss of fidelity over the years, a falling away from our own principles. . . . They are looking for a conversation that goes deeper.”

via A Serious GOP Debate – Robert Costa – National Review Online.

New labor move is anti-biz, jobs – Chicago Sun-Times

For 2½ years I spent 95 percent of my union-work time defending the incompetents, the lazy, the malingers and the malcontents. And they got paid the same as my fellow workers who showed up every day and gave their all to the job. What’s more, I saw how union rules frustrated management innovations to improve our journalistic product.

A few years later I moved on to another journalistic enterprise without a union. I saw merit pay raises given to the hard workers, no salary hikes to those who didn’t or couldn’t do the job, and eventual dismissal of anyone who couldn’t measure up to the demands of the magazine. Thus began my journey from liberal to conservative.

via New labor move is anti-biz, jobs – Chicago Sun-Times.

AP MISLEADS READERS ON RICK PERRY: Cherry-Picks His Statement on Border Security & Lies About Audience Reaction | The Gateway Pundit

The AP deleleted the part of Perry’s speech that including using “strategic fencing” and National Guard troops on the border.

via AP MISLEADS READERS ON RICK PERRY: Cherry-Picks His Statement on Border Security & Lies About Audience Reaction | The Gateway Pundit.

Blogger Gateway Pundit tells us about more completel reports that tell the whole story, including “Weasel Zippers” and WHIO TV.

Kicking Rick: “Texas Cowboy” vs. “Last Responder”

Columnist Jack Kelly writes about the expected media treatment of Governor Rick Perry as the 2012 Presidential campaign heats up.

So expect lots of name calling. That may not work either. The “Texas cowboy” frightens Eastern liberals, but other Americans may find Gov. Perry’s decisiveness a refreshing change from the wuss in the White House who’s been described — cruelly but accurately — by New Hampshire’s Manchester Union Leader as “the Last Responder.”

via Kicking Rick.

WILLisms.com

The next time someone claims Texas ranks “near the bottom” in education, ask them to read this post and get back with you.

The Heritage Foundation mocks Duncan’s “crocodile tears” and explains how mediocrity has become the name of the game in the national education discussion:

68 percent of districts across the United States are below the 50th percentile in mathematics achievement. In more than half of states, no more than three districts have average student math performance that would place students in the upper third of math achievement in international comparisons.

Indeed, while beating national averages is not necessarily anything to write home about, it is still critical to acknowledge that the Texas model, far from perfect, has

via WILLisms.com.

The Tax Foundation – Texas’ State and Local Tax Burden, 1977-2009

Texas ‘state and local tax rate, 1977 : 7.9%. Texas’ state and local tax rate, 2011: 7.9%

The Tax Foundation – Texas’ State and Local Tax Burden, 1977-2009.

GruntDoc » Blog Archive » Why don’t docs get more of what they want in DC?

GruntDoc » Blog Archive » Why don’t docs get more of what they want in DC?.

Abortionists ordered to follow disputed ‘informed consent’ law

The court found constitutional the state’s decision to demand abortionists tell patients three things:

That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;

That [the patient] has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;

That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated.

via Abortionists ordered to follow disputed ‘informed consent’ law.

Breaking: Obama asks EPA to withdraw proposed ozone rule | JunkScience.com

Wow, this would be great if it goes through!

From the “Junk Science” blog:

 

President Barack Obama has asked EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the agency’s proposed toughened ozone standards, citing “the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty, particularly as our economy continues to recover.” The President’s statement is below.

These are rules that would provide no health benefits but cost $1 trillion per year in compliance and kill 7.4 million jobs by 2020.

If EPA administrator Lisa Jackson complies with Obama’s request (no guarantee), this will be a hugely important victory for American workers and the economy, as well as those of us who have been fighting the EPA’s proposed ozone standards.

via Breaking: Obama asks EPA to withdraw proposed ozone rule | JunkScience.com.

Ethical dilemma in fetal stem cell research – UK stroke study | LifeEthics

Ethical dilemma in fetal stem cell research – UK stroke study

“The world’s first clinical trial of brain stem cells to treat stroke has recorded no adverse effects to date, BBC News has reported. The BBC website reports that research using stem cells to treat strokes “is set to move to its next phase” after independent assessors approved continuation of the trial of the experimental treatment. So far the therapy has been tested on three patients left disabled by strokes.”

via Stroke stem cell trial gets extended – Health News – NHS Choices.

The problem is that the cells were harvested from the brains of 12 week old aborted fetuses. The researchers at the University of Glascow, Scotland, working with the company, “ReNeuron,” harvested the cells, manipulated them with genes to induce them to become immortal stem cells that will divide infinitely and now have what appears to an endless supply of proprietary cells for future research and treatments of stroke victims.

More at LifeEthics.org: Ethical dilemma in fetal stem cell research – UK stroke study | LifeEthics.

Rick Perry was right on binational health insurance – Ezra Klein – The Washington Post

Here’s an explanation about the “binational health plan that I keep reading about. Unfortunately, the Legislature only approved a study and there’s never been a law actually allowing the sale of the insurance plans.

To clarify, what Perry referenced was not a merging of Mexico and the United States’ public health systems. It was not, as Wonkette put it, “U.S.-Mexico Obamacare.” Rather, he pointed to a newly passed Texas law, which directed the state to explore allowing private health plans to cover services in Texas and Mexico. Those plans would then be available to any Mexican national or American citizen working within 62 miles of the Texas-Mexico border.

There’s a lot to like about this idea.

First, it targets a big problem in Texas: a lack of insurance. With 26 percent of Texans lacking insurance, the state has the highest rate of uninsured people in the country. Those numbers are even higher in Texas’s border region, according to a 2003 Texas State Senate report.

Second, it’s a private market approach, that would allow insurers to meet an unfilled consumer need. A 2005 study showed that 72 percent of Mexico-born residents of the United States would be interested in a product that covered medical services in Mexico, especially if they had dependents in Mexico who could use those services.

The plan Perry referenced wouldn’t have the state create such a plan. Rather,  it would alter Texas’s insurance regulations to allow private carriers to do so.

via Rick Perry was right on binational health insurance – Ezra Klein – The Washington Post.

A little philosophy, a lot of optimism

I sometimes forget that libertarianism is one step away from  anarchy, and that anarchy is  one step away from nihilism. But a nice little online chat with objectivist (Ron Paul supporter) will remind me almost every time. On the same page blaming “Zionists” and a couple of posts past reminding me that Ayn Rand should be my conscience, I am told that we are due for an “upheaval” resulting in war or a dictator, and that America is a failed state.

America is not a failed state. We are a Nation of individuals with infinite possibilities. I do believe that necessity is the mother of invention and that a free United States will continually prove that.

The nihilist asks what good is there in defeating an enemy? It’s a whole lot better than losing and history shows that if you don’t win, you risk losing both the war and your soul.  We saw Chamberlain give up Czechoslovakia for “peace in our time” and Vichy France betray not only the French, but the Jews.  And then, we saw Churchill resolve never, never, never to give in and even Truman and his decision to end the war with Japan by dropping nuclear bombs.  I’ll stand with the latter two men.

I’ve posted a couple of blog pieces wondering whether we are at the “de Tocqueville moment,” that point in a democratic state when the majority takes from the minority that de Tocqueville warned us about.  I don’t believe we are. What it comes down to is that this time, the individuals who understand history and inalienable rights are outside the gates, fighting to get in, rather than the barbarians.

Here’s a fitting quote from Sir Winston: ““Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.””

Edited for spelling, added categories, 3/28/12 BBN

Deja Vu All Over Again: Total US Debt Passes Debt Ceiling

See WingRight notes from early in August, here and here-  back on August 9th, when the debt was “only” 14.591 Trillion. Did y’all notice how quiet this approach to the debt ceiling it?

   Remember when

one month ago the US, to much pomp and circumstance, not to mention one downgrade, announced a grand bargain raising the debt ceiling from $14.294 trillion to something much higher, with a stop gap intermediate ceiling of $14.694 trillion, or $400 billion more. Well, as of today, or less than a month since the expansion, total US debt is at $14.697 trillion. Yep – the total debt is again over the ceiling, which means the US debt increased by $400 billion in one month. Score one for fiscal prudence. And while the total debt subject to the limit is still slightly less, at $14.652, one week of Treasury auctions and will be time for Moody’s to justify again why the US is a quadruple A credit.

via Deja Vu All Over Again: Total US Debt Passes Debt Ceiling… In Under One Month Since Extension | ZeroHedge. (Watch out for the comments, lots of little boys over there.)

State Representative Wayne Christian Endorses Governor Perry for President

Representative Wayne Christian has endorsed Governor Rick Perry for President. Representative Christian is a true conservative. He “was there,” and can tell the true story about Rick Perry:

“Fact is, as recently as a couple of decades ago, we had no Republican primary in my part of rural Texas.

“Thus, Governor Perry, who entered state politics farther back than me, was courageous enough to take a stand early on and join other statesmen like Ronald Reagan and Phil Gramm in acknowledging that the Democratic Party had left their conservative beliefs behind.

“Much has been criticized of Governor Perry’s initial support for the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC). As President of the Conservative Coalition of the Texas Legislature, I was deeply involved in that entire process. My rural district was directly in the path of the TTC and the project was largely viewed by my constituents as an abuse of the governmental power of eminent domain.

“Truth is, the TTC started as a expansion on the I-35 corridor. The plan was added to legislation by the Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) as a new “branch” of highway that ran from south Texas to the north right through my district. TXDOT presented facts that upon the completion of the Panama Canal expansion many of the trading freighters, which currently only serve the West Coast, would be able to bring their cargo to Texas ports.

“It was anticipated that this would place a tremendous burden on the current highway system as it heads north. However, the flawed TXDOT presentation of the plan and threats to private land ownership were not handled well. Citizens throughout Texas were insulted by the methods of potential property seizure, foreign control of Texas properties and other abuses.

“It was wrong, and when presented with the will of Texas citizens, Governor Perry put a stop to it.”

**********************

I applauded Governor Perry as he stood with the Texas House and Senate (and eventually the Texas Supreme Court) against some very vocal opposition to sign into law Rep. Hamilton’s bill preventing a potential land grab by the state. In this past session, Governor Perry declared eminent domain reform legislation an emergency item and saw it all the way through the legislative process until he signed it into law, strengthening the rights and protections of private property owners across Texas.

Thanks so much to Texas Insider for the story!

Texas Insider » Combs Announces Successful Short-Term Notes Sale

Texas Insider Report: AUSTIN, Texas – Today’s sale of $9.8 billion in one-year cash flow notes from the state of Texas was very well-received by the financial community. High demand for the notes drove the interest rate down to 0.27 percent – the lowest interest rate the state has received on its annual short-term notes.

“Texas had a very successful sale and the demand for these notes shows investors’ high confidence in Texas’ recovering economy and the state’s solid record of conservative fiscal management,” Texas Comptroller Susan Combs said. “Buyers bid about $31 billion – more than three times the amount offered for sale. And the resulting low interest rate is very beneficial to the state.”

Proceeds from the notes, known as Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes (TRANs), will be used to distribute state funding to public schools early in the upcoming fiscal year and to help state government manage its cash flow between the start of the fiscal year and the arrival of tax revenues later in the year.

The TRAN notes sold today will be repaid Aug. 31, 2012.

via Texas Insider » Combs Announces Successful Short-Term Notes Sale.

Rick Perry and Mark Levin Interview

Audio, here,

The Governor in a 15 minute interview on the Mark Levin Radio show, posted on Youtube.

Rick Perry revives hope for tort reform

While maintaining our strong protections from the 2005 Texas tort reform, the Governor advanced a new law this year that will further protect everyone in Texas. With the new “loser pays” law, we should see fewer frivolous lawsuits and the monetary judgements from genuine litigation against wrong-doers will not be eaten up by legitimate legal expenses.

 

Imagine this: Emily, whose right kidney has failed, goes to the hospital for a transplant. Instead of replacing her right kidney, the surgeons mistakenly replace her left kidney. Left with her failed kidney and an uncertain transplant, Emily sues for medical malpractice. After months of costly litigation, Emily’s original damage claims are swallowed up by the cost of her legal fees.

Should she, the injured party, bear the costs of litigation?

This example demonstrates the problem of the “American Rule,” which is nearly universal in the American legal system with regard to torts. The American Rule requires each party to pay its own litigation costs, regardless of outcome. Most other Western democracies use the “English Rule,” or “loser pays,” which quite literally means that the loser pays the costs of litigation for all involved parties.

via Rick Perry revives hope for tort reform | Washington Times Communities.

Herald-Zeitung (Gesundheit!) and the AP: Dumb and Dumber

I was shocked to see that this morning’s  printed version of my own hometown paper, the New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung, featured a front-page article, “Texas to appeal judge’s ruling,” stating that Texas’ ultrasound law would force women to “undergo an invasive vaginal ultrasound.” This is a lie. Perhaps the problem is that the author only quoted  a lawyer for the New York firm that sued the State of Texas.

(The piece isn’t on the website, but it’s a reprint of the article by April Castro, available at the Houston Chronicle .)

As Federal Judge Sam Sparks wrote when denying the plaintiff’s claim that the law did not provide equal protection under the law because it only applied to women, “This legitimate interest obviously justifies “singling out” abortion providers and the patients thereof, because they pose a serious potential risk to “the life of the fetus that may become a child.”’

The State of Texas regulates physicians, not patients and HB 15 is a set of conditions that a physician must meet before performing abortions. The Supreme Court has acknowledged (along with other thinking human beings) that States (We the People, the rest of us) have a legitimate interest in promoting the life and health of both the woman and her unborn child and in protecting them from fraud and coercion. Nothing in the wording of the law would force anyone to undergo an “invasive vaginal ultrasound.”

Regardless of the oft-repeated claim that an ultrasound is not medically necessary, it is standard of care prior to all abortions. The website of one of the plaintiffs, Alan Braid, MD’s Reproductive Services of San Antonio, informs potential patients that an ultrasound is included in the abortion fee  and “to determine the length of your pregnancy.” It is also standard of care to use the Ultrasound to guide instruments being introduced into the vagina and uterus.

Sparks objected to the mandate that physicians must describe any cardiac activity or development of limbs and internal organs. This is medical information that belongs to the woman, not ideology.

Sparks also claimed that the State intends to “brand” women by having them sign an informed consent paper and the inclusion of that paper in what he called “semi-private, at best” medical records. He is afraid that the record might be used in the future in lawsuits against the doctor, ignoring the fact that this would only happen if the woman who owns the medical information is the one suing the doctor.

(Edited for better sentences, 10:15 AM. BBN)

Kick-off: Boehner wins the coin toss

The headlines concerning the negotiations between the White House and the People’s House are news in themselves. Maybe if the WH staffers didn’t know about the GOP debate, they didn’t know about the NFL opener?

First, from the Entertainment news, The TV Guide:“President Obama Agrees to Reschedule Jobs Speech to NFL Opening Day”

Washington Post blog: “Obama relents on jobs speech to Congress, moves address to Sept. 8”

Reuters’ completely avoids the fact that there was a date change in its headline, “Obama to address Congress on September 8,” but gives the best explanation about Speaker Boehner’s “parliamentary procedure and logistics” problems:

The House and the Democratic-controlled Senate must pass a joint resolution to provide for Congress to assemble for Obama’s remarks. Lawmakers get back to work in Washington on September 7 after their summer recess and start votes at 6:30 p.m. EDT (2230 GMT). Boehner cited such parliamentary “impediments” when asking for the date change.

But the winner is the AP/Forbes headline, “Obama bows to Boehner; jobs speech will be Sept. 8.”

This head line is being picked up all over the world.

Edit: Here’s the letter from Speaker Boehner to the President about the problems with Wednesday night. (Hat tip to RedState)

Office of the Governor Rick Perry – [Press Release] Statement by Gov. Rick Perry on Injunction of Sonogram Law

Gov. Rick Perry today issued the following statement on U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks’ injunction against Texas’ recently-passed sonogram legislation:

“Every life lost to abortion is a tragedy and today’s ruling is a great disappointment to all Texans who stand in defense of life. This important sonogram legislation ensures that every Texas woman seeking an abortion has all the facts about the life she is carrying, and understands the devastating impact of such a life-changing decision. I have full confidence in Attorney General Abbott’s efforts to appeal this decision as he defends the laws enacted by the Texas Legislature.”

via Office of the Governor Rick Perry – [Press Release] Statement by Gov. Rick Perry on Injunction of Sonogram Law.

Iowa tea party: wants to keep details private on deals with Palin staff

RedState’s Erick Erickson tweeted that something’s going on between Sarah Palin and the Iowa Tea Party., just as the Wall Street Journal reported.

I looked up the reference Mr. Erickson gave, and there’s definitely something going on, but it’s “private, for now.”

Christine O’Donnell is off the guest list – again – and Sarah Palin is a “maybe.”

In the latest episode in the drama over the speaking lineup for Saturday’s Tea Party of America rally in Iowa, organizer Ken Crow said Palin’s staff called this morning to say Palin’s appearance at the rally was “on hold” until three changes were made.

“They said, ‘Ken, can you take care of bing, bing, bing’ and I said, ‘Yessir, I will’ and I did,” Crow, an Indianola Republican told The Des Moines Register.

“Now I’m waiting to hear back.”

Crow said two of the requests were logistical details: Email a copy of the program today, and address concerns about back-stage security and who will be allowed in that area.

Asked about the third request, Crow said: “Can I let that remain private for now?”

via Iowa tea party made three changes at Palin’s staff’s request | Iowa Caucuses.

(follow me, @bnuckols, on Twitter for WingRight updates.

Obama: clueless or arrogant?

President Obama has announced his intention to address a joint session of Congress on night of the first Republican debate, September 7, 2011. Maybe the White House just didn’t know that NBC was set to broadcast the debate?

Believe it or not, the President’s press secretary indicates that the answer to my question is “arrogant:”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said “of course not” when asked whether White House officials chose the time of Mr. Obama’s speech to interfere with the Republican debate. “One debate of many was not reason not to have a speech when we wanted to have it,” he said.

According to Politico, one of the sponsors,

“Carney added that POLITICO and NBC News are “welcome” to reschedule the debate.”

According to the New York Times blog, The Caucus, 

NBC News, Politico and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation; it is to be televised by MSNBC, CNBC and the Spanish-language network Telemundo and streamed on the Internet by Politico. It is to be moderated by NBC’s Brian Williams and Politico’s John Harris.

Make that: “Doing the work skilled abortionists won’t”

A better title than the first.

Critique of Judge Sam Sparks’ Opinion on Texas Ultrasound Law (part 2)

See Part 1, here
Media reports say that due to the injunction by Federal Judge Sam Sparks, the Texas Ultrasound law will not go into effect at all until a higher court rules on it. However, the Judge does note that there is a severability clause and that his injunction is narrow. I’m waiting to see opinions from lawyers as to whether abortionists will be held to parts of the law that are not specifically under injunction.

In the meantime, I wonder how many women will meet the abortionist before they are gowned and sedated for the procedure and how many will insist on seeing their sonograms?

In the second half of the Opinion by Judge Sam Sparks, the Judge outlines the specific complaints brought against the new law, HB 15, (text of the law, here ) . Most of those complaints are dismissed, even as the Judge continues to call the new law “unwise” and ultimately imposes an injunction against enforcement.

Sparks disagrees with the Plaintiffs, the Center for Reproductive Rights out of New York, that the definitions of “medical emergency,”  “sonogram,”  “in a quality consistent with current medical practice,” and “in a manner understandable to a layperson” are unconstitutionally vague.  He also disagrees with the Plaintiffs on whether or not “visit” and “abortion-related services” are unclear to most people.

The major complaints upheld by the judge appear to be that the law doesn’t allow for multiple-physician practices or for a switch if the original doctor who informed the woman about her ultrasound cannot, “through some unforeseen circumstances,” perform the abortion, requires a woman to sign an informed consent acknowledgement, and   forces the physician to “advance an ideological agenda.”  Sparks also does not like the word “soley,” for reasons that I don’t understand.

It is true that one purpose of the law was to ensure that women were given informed consent by the physician who was to perform the abortion, “in a private and confidential setting.” Most abortionists had been satisfying the 24 hour waiting period and informed consent the same way that Dr. Alan Braid’s Reproductive Services of San Antonio,  had:  over the phone  or by referring the woman to the information on the Internet.

However, it doesn’t appear that Sparks overturned these requirements, since the injunction overturns the objection to the requirement that women receive private and confidential informed consent and the exception for those who live more than 100 miles from the abortion clinic. The opinion only finds fault with the lack of accommodations for “unplanned substitutions.”

The judge makes a surprising statement about the requirement that a copy of the informed consent be inserted in the medical record of the woman:

Compounding this problem is newly-added section 171.0121, which requires both that a copy of the above certification be placed in the pregnant woman’s medical records (presumably permanently), and that the facility that performs the abortion retain a copy for at least seven years.See H.B. 15, Sec. 3 (adding TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 171.0121). Given the nature of the certification and the Act’s retention requirements, it is difficult to avoid the troubling conclusion that the Texas Legislature either wants to permanently brand women who choose to get abortions, or views these certifications as potential evidence to be used against physicians and women.

Sparks says that the medical record is “semi-private,” and is concerned that it might someday be subpoenaed for use in a court case. The only time that these would be seen in Court is if the woman herself sues the doctor.

Sparks also engages in a bit of ideological speech of his own about the requirement for the abortionist to describe  “the presence of cardiac activity,” and “the presence of external members and internal organs.”

“ The Court does not think the disclosures required by the Act are particularly relevant to any compelling government  interest, but whatever relevance they may have is greatly diminished by the disclosures already required under Texas law, which are more directly pertinent to those interests.”

and, from page 50:

The net result of these provisions is: (1) a physician is required to say things and take expressive actions with which the physician may not ideologically agree, and which the physician may feel are medically unnecessary; (2) the pregnant woman must not only passively receive this potentially unwanted speech and expression, but must also actively participate—in the best case by simply signing an election form, and in the worst case by disclosing in writing extremely personal, medically irrelevant facts; and (3) the entire experience must be memorialized in records that are,at best, semi-private. In 7 the absence of a sufficiently weighty government interest, and a sufficiently narrow statute advancing that interest, neither of which have been argued by Defendants, the Constitution does not permit such compulsion.

Edit to add this question: How can a doctor “not ideologically agree” with the facts visible on the sonogram when describing heart or limbs?

In my opinion, the worst part of the ruling is Spark’s legal-speak on “compelling’ and his insistence on bringing back the ever-moving line of “viability:”

Second, while Casey refers to the government’s interest in potential life as “important,” “substantial,” and “legitimate,” it stops short of characterizing it as “compelling.” Indeed, one of the holdings of Roe v. Wade, and one this Court does not interpret Casey as having overruled, was that “[w]ith respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the ‘compelling’ point is at viability.”

Tell me, Judge Sparks, just what is “viability?” 24 weeks, 20 or 18 weeks?

link to Part 1 and “sticky” added September 5, 2011 12:19 PM BBN

Doing the work skilled providers won’t

Will someone tell me why it is logical for Federal Judge Sam Sparks to assume that “less-skilled providers”  will be willing to meet the “onerous requirements” that more-skilled providers won’t?

” The Court has grave doubts about the wisdom of the Act, but that is no legal basis for invalidating it. The Act’s onerous requirements will surely dissuade or prevent many competent doctors from performing abortions, making it significantly more difficult for pregnant women to obtain abortions. Forcing pregnant women to receive medical treatment from less-skilled providers certainly seems to be at odds with ‘protecting the physical and psychological health and well-being of pregnant women,’ one of the Act’s stated purposes.”

Critique of Judge Sam Sparks’ Texas Ultrasound Opinion

I’m a doctor, not a lawyer, so I may not understand all of the words and references in the opinion, but I’m shocked that any self-respecting Federal Judge would allow such a frankly biased opinion out of his office. Perhaps Sparks doesn’t mind burning his chances of ever being appointed to another Court, and is quite happy with his life time appointment in the Federal Court at Austin.

I’m halfway through the ruling and thought I’d post some thoughts before these comments got too long.

Sparks decided that it’s not really important for the Plaintiffs to be someone actually harmed by the Law in order to have standing in his Court. He approved the class action suit filed by a New York State corporation, The Center for Reproductive Rights, who filed a class action suit on behalf of all the abortionists in Texas, supported by affidavits from three abortionists:

1. 1. Alan Braid, MD is the only one  of the three who lives and works in Texas. He owns a privately owned abortion clinic in San Antonio, Reproductive Services, S.A. http://www.reproductiveservicessa.com/
2. 2. David A. Grimes, MD, inventor of the partial birth abortion and instructor in “family planning and OBGyn at the University of North Carolina. In 1995, Grimes testified in favor of forcing residency programs and residents to perform and  train doctors in abortion http://www.nchla.org/issues.asp?ID=28  “Making abortion training a routine part of any residency…will put abortion back in the mainstream of medicine.”
3. 3.  Anne D. Lyerly, MD, from the University of North Carolina at Chapell Hill, who was once the chair of the ethics committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. She testified *against* conscience rights before the Bush President’s Bioethics Council in 2006.

If R. v. W. isn’t found to be gross misconduct, this ruling should be. Sparks can’t resist a revealing his prejudice and mocking the legislature.

Citing Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 846 (1992), a US Supreme Court ruling on abortion limitations and Equal Protection, Sparks not only has to admit that the Texas law is legitimate under prior law and Court rulings, but that:

“This legitimate interest obviously justifies “singling out” abortion providers and the patients thereof, because they pose a serious potential risk to “the life of the fetus that may become a child.”’

However, he goes on to admit his prior bias:

“The Court has grave doubts about the wisdom of the Act, but that is no legal basis for invalidating it. The Act’s onerous requirements will surely dissuade or prevent many competent doctors from performing abortions, making it significantly more difficult for pregnant women to

obtain abortions. Forcing pregnant women to receive medical treatment from less-skilled providers certainly seems to be at odds with “protecting the physical and psychological health and well-being of pregnant women,” one of the Act’s stated purposes. H.B. 15, Sec. 12(1). However, rational basis review requires this Court to accept even tenuous rationales for the advancement of a legitimate government interest.

In short, if the Texas Legislature wishes to prioritize an ideological agenda (2) over the health and safety of women, the Equal Protection Clause does not prevent it from doing so under these circumstances. Accordingly, the Court must reject Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection arguments. (p. 20/55)

That footnote (2) ?

“2 It is ironic that many of the same people who zealously defend the state’s righteous duty to become intimately involved in a woman’s decision to get an abortion are also positively scandalized at the government’s gross overreaching in the area of health care.”

S

“(It) is difficult to avoid the troubling conclusion the Texas Legislature either wants to permanently brand women who choose to get abortions, or views these certifications as potential evidence to be used against physicians and women,” Sparks wrote.